Important Books & Reports

Glyphosate/Roundup, falsely claimed by Monsanto to be safe and harmless, has become the world’s most widely and pervasively used herbicide; it has brought rising tides of birth defects, cancers, fatal kidney disease, sterility, and dozens of other illnesses - more

Ban GMOs Now - Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Dr. Eva Sirinathsinghji

Health & environmental hazards
especially in the light of the new genetics - more

Living Rainbow H2O - Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

A unique synthesis of the latest findings in the quantum physics and chemistry of water that tells you why water is the “means, medium, and message of life” - more

The Rainbow and the Worm - the Physics of Organisms - Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

“Probably the Most Important Book for the Coming Scientific Revolution” - more

WHO Report on Fukushima a Travesty

The World Health Organisation has failed in its obligation to
protect the public and guilty of the crime of non-assistanceSusie Greaves

World Health Organisation subservient to nuclear lobby

The
World Health Report (May 2012) entitled “Preliminary dose estimation from the
nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami” [1] is
a public relations exercise to reassure the world that WHO is fulfilling its
role in the area of radiation and health. Following the preliminary dose
estimation, WHO will complete a health risk assessment to “support the
identification of needs and priorities for public health action.” But this
report and the one to follow cannot help those people in Japan who should have
been evacuated much sooner and who will certainly suffer health consequences of
varying degrees from their exposure to radiation since March 2011.

This report bears all the hallmarks of WHO’s subservience to the IAEA. It was
not written by WHO personnel but by an International Expert Panel convened
by the WHO. A
cursory glance at the list of contributors shows that all have ties to the
nuclear industry, whether directly, as members of the IAEA or UNSCEAR, or as
members of organisations like the UK Health Protection Agency (previously the
National Radiological Protection Board). WHO
has no department or expert in radiation and health [2]. It is entirely dependent on the IAEA for its information
on the subject after signing the 1959 agreement WHA 12/40 between the
two organisations [3].

Unreliable or absent data

The
report uses data supplied by the Japanese government, and makes no reference to
alternative sources of information, for instance from independent Japanese
citizen organisations [4], CRIIRAD (France)
[5], Fairewinds (USA) [6] or Greenpeace international [7]. To rely only on
Japanese government figures does a disservice to the people of Japan, many of
whom no longer trust their own politicians. Independent Japanese scientists
have criticised the methodology used by the Japanese government to measure the
radioactive fallout from Fukushima. For example, Prof. Matsui Eisuke, a
specialist in respiratory diseases and low dose radiation, and director of the
Medical Institute of Environment at Gifu, says that [8] “The government
and its professional advisors have relied mainly on gamma rays which are easy
to detect. But, in terms of internal radiation exposure, beta and alpha rays
have a far more serious effect than gamma rays. The government and TEPCO hardly
measure such isotopes as beta emitting strontium 90 or alpha emitting
plutonium239. They have been deliberately ignoring the characteristics of
internal exposure.”

We are told in the WHO report that no assessment can be made of the radiation received by people living within 20
km of the reactor because “precise data” were not available. Similarly we are
told that no assessment can be made of the dose received by workers at the nuclear
power plant because this requires a different “dosimetric approach”. Thus, two critical
groups that have
been exposed to very high levels of radiation are dismissed on page 15 of the
report and never mentioned again.

As regards estimates of the radiation dose in the rest of the world (page 28),
we are told no measurements were available. Yet the 60 measuring stations
worldwide belonging to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation [9] had been collecting crucial data, and could tell us
exactly how much radiation was released on any day in many parts of the world
since March 11th 2011. But though these stations are paid for by the
people of the world, the measurements are only made available to
pre-selected official organisations in each country and of course to WHO! Indeed,
independent scientists have estimated even from a limited set of such data made
available to them that the actual releases of radioactivity from the Fukushima
accident has been at least 15 times as great as the official figures [10] (Fukushima
Fallout Rivals Chernobyl, SiS 55)

Interestingly,
in a meeting with the group IndependentWHO on 4May 2011, Dr Chan,
Director-General of the WHO confirmed that she receives these reports from the
CTBTO and stated that she does not disseminate the information to the public
because, in her view, there is no public health threat [11]. Yet earlier in the
meeting, Chan admitted that she personally has no competence in radiation
science and furthermore, there is no longer a department of radiation and
health in WHO headquarters in Geneva.

Ten
to 50 times annual dose limit as defined by International
Commission on Radiological Protection

The
report is padded out with an unnecessary amount of material justifying its
methodology, so that we have to read as far as Page 63 before we are given some
concrete figures about the actual radiation dose to which people have been
exposed. It states that [1]: “In Fukushima prefecture, the estimated effective
doses are within a dose band of 1−10 mSv, except in two of the example
locations where the effective doses are estimated to be within a dose band of
10–50 mSv…”.

These momentous
figures are slipped into the text without any comment or interpretationby
WHO. Two things should be borne in mind. First, the internationally accepted dose limit for members of the public is 1 mSv per year
[12], so the 2 million inhabitants of Fukushima province have received up to
ten times this limit, and the inhabitants of the worst affected areas (as an
example the
75,000 people in Futaba county, and the
22,000 people in Namie county) have received between 10 and 50 times this limit.

As the WHO
report makes no comment about the health implications of exposure to these
amounts of radiation, we the public need to
interpret the data ourselves, using other studies as a comparison. The largest
study undertaken of nuclear industry workers in 2007, found increased cancer
mortality among nuclear workers exposed to an average of 2 mSv/year, [13] and
the latest BEIR report (Biological Effects of
Ionising Radiation) from the United States Academy of Sciences indicates that
children and especially girls are many times more vulnerable to the same
radiation dose as adults [14].

The
crime of non-assistance

The
objective of the World Health Organisation as stated in Article 1 of its
Constitution, is “the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level
of health “ and in Article 2, it states that it should “…assist in developing
an informed public opinion among all peoples on matters of health” [15] .WHO
ignores its own Constitution and is guilty of the crime of non-assistance, when it fails to point out that
these levels of radiation are many times higher than accepted limits and leaves
the task of interpreting these levels to the lay reader.

A full 14
months after the accident at Fukushima and WHO boasts that its report “provides
timely and authoritative information” about the estimated radiation dose. It
promises more detailed studies later and an assessment of the health impacts, but
the tens of thousands of people, living in dangerously contaminated areas of
Japan, cannot wait that long.

“On Tuesday, March 15, Maria Neira, Director of Public Health and Environment Department, acknowledged that the WHO had no experts on site. She said she was ready to respond to every request from Tokyo, adding that “this request should be made through the IAEA.” Agathe Duparc. Le Monde, 19.03.11 http://philrr.blog.lemonde.fr/2011/03/

Using the BEIR risk models, girls are almost twice as vulnerable as same-aged boys, and a 5-year-old girl is 5 times and an infant female 7 times more vulnerable than a 30-year-old man. United States National Academy of Sciences. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. 2006. (page 311) http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=311

Comment on this article

Comments may be published. All comments are moderated. Name and email details are required.

Name:

Email address:

Your comments:

Anti spam question:How many legs does a spider have?

There are 1 comments on this article so far. Add your comment above.

George Wade Comment left 9th July 2012 18:06:01A good, useful summary of the situation.
I do not see much mention of counter measures. Apple pectin for eliminating some dangerous metals is in the IndependentWHO 'The Forum on radioprotection in Geneva : pictures and recordings
20 - JUNE - 2012' “See the abstracts of presentations”.
Other useful concepts, such as chelation therapy, colloidal zeolite absorption of heaviest metals first, blue-green algae aiding elimination of metals are not much discussed.
Further: when an animal is supported nutritionally error checking of DNA during mitosis may well minimise damage. DNA replication and error checking routines www.di.uq.edu.au/dnarep
What is the best way to manage this knowledge; just to send further comments ?